Even More on Values Stations

Last update: 2015 Jan

I hope by now, that you have read the previous pages [The home page & More on Values Stations] and see that in these models there is a 'linking or coming together' (call it integration) of the many perspectives of human cultures. The PCVJ and Dave's other models have sought to integrate various worldviews using a few common themes represented by the colours and shapes, including their spatial relationship to each other to give us a map of the 'state-of-mind' of human ventures or individuals. [Remember - click on an image for a larger view & or to download a more readable version]

We are not going to touch specifically on leadership here, but consider the dynamics of freedom, power, & influence of the paradigms... and a little more on chaos.

We can see these VS/paradigms in a different view in the Dark [see dysfunctional behaviour] and Light Tetrads - added to the site 2022

One leadership perspective of the PCVJ [there are others]:

Each model we create is moulded by our own perspective and as such will have its limitations... keep looking at them until you no longer need or want to. They will change for you at each transformation you endure. So the best you can do for now is just, enjoy, try to go with the flow!

Capacity slowly builds:

Consider ANY course that you have done... As we develop our capacity to do or think or feel, we find we have constructed a more complex life for ourselves. Fortunately, that thinking capacity also means we develop the capacity to find the simplicity in it but it requires some (more) effort. The effort [or Will to action - see later], comes to grow some more; to move to a higher plane of existence. We then see and sense more chaos and possibilities and, again, we can learn tricks to try to make sense of it and navigate our world.

Another way to look at how and why change occurs between stations, that is, what drives the journey forward (or back), is by looking at that point when you (individually or collectively) say 'enough', 'just do it', 'what the heck', 'aha', 'eureka', 'bingo', 'I get it', 'I just have to do something', 'I'll do it if it kills me'... whatever! This is the recognition or acceptance of a point to change something - our Tipping Point (see Stages of Change). Stages of Change describes what happens [or is most obvious] near and in each divide/chasm/crossing point but what, I ask, does it mean to 'crossover', to 'shift' paradigms. Let's look more at each 'chaotic phase' in the journey. We'll have to delve in to some psyche to explain bits of this - you know... ego states and the like, so first, we'll visit the vertical axis...

...............................

Freedom is the recognition of necessity [Hegel, 1770-1831]

Freedom is the recognition of holistic necessity [mg 2008]

...................................

Degrees of Freedom [DoF] (capacity for autonomy & freedom):

Considering the PCVJ: 'Degrees of Freedom' has numerous aspects and here we'll be looking at it from a social perspective where going up the vertical axis, you (or your organization) is less affected/restricted by social power (though one might take more social responsibilities on oneself) AND increasing complexity. It doesn't mean the 'freedom' to control or manipulate the constraints of your environment or your relationships or your direction and degree of success (a firm or individual can also have internal constraints), that's a product of the two axes - those constraints just mean less to you.

....................................

Dr Dave's comment: Degree of Freedom (DoF) is the amount to which a person/organism has freed itself from the restrictions placed on it by society. It is important to keep the two axes distinct from each other. So the X axis is ‘fitting in’/navigating the status quo and Y is ‘come what may’ it’s me here. That is not to say too much Y is good. Just that as you progress along Y there are more ‘variables’ to be considered, hence there's a link to statistical degrees of freedom.

There is also the aspect of ‘number of categories minus 1’, as in stats, so that purple is red minus 1, blue is orange minus 1, green is yellow minus 1. To move within a paradigm is to add yourself into the mix to increase the variables thereby increasing degrees of freedom. [click pic for more detail]

....................................

There is the element of increasing self-mastery (internal; experience; capacity, Will) that comes with progression along the horizontal axis, while independence from other 'powers' (external) or one's own internal constraints refers to freedoms [initially]. Choice, knowledge, and experience are required to cope with the increasing mix of variables and so with each choice to grow comes generally more freedom (vertical) as well [n.b. eventually, there can be a 'loss' initially]. There stages of giving up of some freedom as one progresses but just until you learn that lesson/paradigm and move onwards and upwards again.

I have realized that MY sense of freedom is to BE me - BE accepted as me - the individual... NOT by what I DO or HAVE or what 'STATUS/POSITION' that I have - especially within the social constructs that we live with. I don't exclude the DOingness; I prioritize the BEingness. Maybe it's a age thing [I'm 60 in a few weeks]... BEen, there; DOne that... take me or leave me as I AM, world!

A thought: SHAME is from being told you are not BEing good enough [i.e faulty - remember original sin?]; GUILT is from being told you are not DOing enough/right [from the righteous mindsets]. There are not many situations in society to BE, & to be accepted for that - plenty of opportunities for shame & guilt to be used on you. Surely there is a positive, supportive [ultimately empathic] world out there.

Remember the stepwise journey!

The 'ideal' growth would be a diagonal, of course, but probably as a practical approach or all we can handle, we humans (and their constructs) grow in 'steps' - one dimension at a time - along OR up. So the 'journey' is a snaking line. Consider the move from Red to Blue (or Orange to Green). At these two paradigm changes, there is a small loss of freedom in order to gain more rational capacity and considerate behaviour but the next ascendency returns a much larger rise [in awareness & skill sets] on the vertical freedom dimension - much more freedom!

Lose a bit for a while to gain a lot. Just like when I went to uni... I lost income, restricted my range of activities, and had very little free time in order to get an education that would (and did) give me more freedom - freedom to choose occupation/earning capacity as well as capacity to think about things and interact with my world in a much broader sense. It took me a while to choose further education (life experience helped) to make that shift - my self-talk was against it until I reached my Beta State (actually, several times I went to Gamma - meltdown!!!) - see Stages of Change for the terminology.

Freedom is not just about an absence of externally-imposed constraints. One has to be able to deal with (remove) the internally-imposed constraints of your own mindset to be free(er).

So there's a component of positive behaviour that makes one less restrained by society and benefiting from your choices. This is also called emotional intelligence.

I have looked at freedom from the rights-responsibilities argument. As one gets rights in society, complementary responsibilities are also incumbent on the rightee! So, with increased freedom (an earned/discovered right?) comes with an obligation (?) to engender even more considerate conduct (call it social consciousness!). For business, this is their [perhaps forgotten] 'social contract'.

There's an order to freedom: your company has to have freedom from 'blah... constraint' before you get freedom to do/have 'blah... action/benefit'. A constraint removed and a freedom invoked.

Consider this analogy of communication freedom:

One could talk...

to someone to pass a message to someone else (remember Chinese whispers?)
face-to-face (you get visual cues)
using a landline (distance & privacy) - and from here on, more variety of people possible easily
using a radio (distance & flexibility)
using a mobile phone (large distances, flexibility, & privacy)
using a wireless broadband/data connection with video and camera on a laptop/PDA (the lot, with visual cues again) - even bulk transmission (e.g. video, conferencing, youtube, etc)

...and each 'style' of communication gives some sort of freedom: flexibility of distance/location, security, privacy, diversity, speed, etc. Each step upwards requires a corresponding change in our knowledge base and skill (experience) to make it happen. Each step has an increasing complication factor - more variables to contend with! Communication freedom results. There can also be a loss of some functional detail, but not necessarily - YOU choose the appropriate communication style for the situation... You are no longer limited by the only one or two you knew before...

This realization of communication freedom of sorts was bought home to me a few years ago with stunning effect. In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, with nearly a week's sail to the nearest piece of land in any direction, I could talk to or email home... by satellite phone!

Loss of Freedom:

If you are interested in how we/people LOSE freedom, search 'Cognitive Dissonance Theory' & cults... interesting reading. Extreme [dysfunctional] BLUE behaviour

Robotics DoF:

Taking from robotics engineering: DoF could be interpreted as a number equating to increasing and differing independent methods/ways (variables) of interacting with (including being indifferent to) one's social environs.

Expanding the vertical axis:

(more to insert)

Here are my thoughts to date on the increasing (social) freedoms and autonomy (and your freedom of choice to take on increasing social responsibilities without the pressure)...

One's freedom starts (bottom) with much uncertainty of life and variability of circumstance, through increasingly 'known' circumstances with stable periods with skills and abilities to cope, to a flexible existence where the uncertainty and/or stability are mostly irrelevant (at top of chart) as you can self-organize and wend your way with a very open and adaptable awareness of circumstances in time and space.

Level of Freedom:

1. Instantaneous(?): zero to little social freedom - live now (uncertain existence) – one-way communication [out]

2. Aggregating: shared freedom in a societal group - Forming supportive groups & structure (certainty) – two-way but unbalanced communication

3. Comparative: personal freedom circumventing some social restraints - Knowledge makes a difference over time (seeking stable growth) – forming the communications

4. Reflexive: leader has more social freedoms – [Self-]learning from hindsight; future-orientation (forming ideals) – guiding/modifying the communications

5. Holistic --> to spiritual [need a descriptor??]: attachment freedom (unaffected by society’s mores or influencing/creating them) - navigating instability; chaotic (fluid, non-linear, virtual associations) – subtle communications

[still more to come...]

0 [zero] Degrees of Freedom - at this level, you'd get/take zero or minimal control over your life - communication is poor - you are totally dependent on the vagaries of life or your providers.
1 Degrees -
2 Degrees -
3 Degrees -
4 Degrees -
5 Degrees -

Layers of values:

Three layers of values have been identified, starting with surface values [what you express as your moral code], next by hidden values [able to 'find' with simple therapies/cognitive exercises and/or some observation], and the hard to see deepest values [akin to the 'inner child' thinking/believing/acting styles].

A [relevant] distraction first - The Disclosure Grid

The row of 'Aspects unknown be me' could equate to Jung's 'Shadow', the part that, if sought, helps us grow. To expand here, one needs to question and listen to the answers even if we don't want to or believe them. Reality is often different to our perception - multiple realities [others] helps one get close to the real reality.

Back to values [remembering that we often don't know ALL of our own]:

Surface values bind and/or fragment an organisation or self - they are seen by others relatively easily through overtly expressed values and behaviours!

Hidden values include the ideals and vision that drives the firm, and affects attitudes and activities of personnel at all levels such as a commitment as loyalty or towards life-long learning or to a level of commitment towards a particular quality or orientation of the company. These are often passed down via leaders [parents].

The third values layer consists of emergent deep values that subtly affect the behavioural systems and give rise to a binding and resistant/stable 'culture'. This emerges from the usually unconscious individual or group thinking processes and takes considerable time to develop/change - can take centuries for nations. If a Value Station values closed perspectives &/or fixed or absolute perspectives, then the groupthink or silo effect can seem impenetrable to outsiders [cf. Blue]. This is also their downfall. Some Value Stations are more 'open' to consideration of possibilities... those above the thinking divide.

The various paradigm shifts:

The transitional phases are critical. During this time, the leader-follower communication is paramount for a positive emergence [business/boss or family/parent]. The transitions are characterized by chaotic and confusing times for those travelling through it and the support of a someone who has previously travelled this path - a leader - is desirable. We go more into the Communications Compass for direction on how to communicate between the various levels and in Stages of Change we go into more detail and the process of change. Meanwhile, let's look more into those challenging times.

(sigh... Yes, deeper discourse to come...)

Read this then look at the Congruency Table for specific changes...

Purple to Red (Dependence to Independence):

Finally, I WILL take control of MY life (AND yours if I can)! I learn the use of power.

ed: insert missing graphics [between each para]

Red to Blue (Independence to Dependence - again?!?)

A hard lesson: learning to be dependent again [on the system this time, not family - i.e. in a 'bigger' way] .

From beast to citizen, as Stanton Coit says [Is civilization a disease?] - remembering that most people would look at the Blue bureaucracies as 'essence of civilization' [law/army/police, infrastructure, education, ...

Sadly, I have run into several brick walls and am not getting the freedom I thought. The repercussions are hurting... What do I have to do?

A: Learn the rules of the game of life/society.

The times of bullies and aggressive power is no longer acceptable for this society. Some time here learning to 'fit in' and obey the hierarchy so you get supported and protected by the system.

Blue to Orange (A double-bunger paradigm shift: Dependence to Independence & Absolutist to Relativistic Thinking):

One might expect this paradigm shift to take some courage and persistence since there are more variables in your head/corporate culture to change. The security blanket is not getting you what you thought and you desire more reward for your effort NOW! I'll actively seek reward for effort instead of waiting for it. I have been independent before, I'll try again but differently...

I take responsibility for my life again AND with knowledge of the system. I am more open to (and take) different approaches to getting things done (I may have to ask for forgiveness after I do it). Life is more challenging and interesting and I have more personal direction tho' more 'risk'. I accept the risk! [with trepidation at first]

Orange to Green (Independence to Interdependence):

I have worked in awesome teams - really achieved, beat the competition!! Woohoo!!! I won. I'm on top of my game.

BUT now I feel that success is not all it's cracked up to be. Some other aspects have suffered for my success. I have achieved my dreams but still I'm not happy... Why not??? What could be next?

I look to helping and working with (not competing against) others... perhaps in softer work teams; perhaps some charity work; perhaps coaching. Now I seek to get along in harmony (again) but at least with some grand ideals - not just for future safety/security like in Blue, but a bigger picture version - incorporating my community and even other communities. I think in a broader context - I begin to dream again.

Green to Yellow (Interdependence to more Interdependence?!?)

This is actually a major mental-emotional shakeup. The sort where you take your mind out of your head, remold it and put it back in... and some more lights come on!

This paradigm requires a leap-of-faith as well [not necessarily any religious connotations here - but there is an equivalent].

The Green ideal didn't bear fruit and I'm getting wiser because of it. I know a trick or two now how people work and come to realize that I have to motivate my teams and others to pursue and create those new dreams - the new Green ideals in a pragmatic way. Just discussing and hoping and dreaming didn't work. Consensus is nice but action creates! How to get both! Create a consensus of direction, not necessarily of each action... work around or resolve the conflicts... aha! A vision... hmmm... to lead. Now read The World of Systems and Ethics & the Synergy Star.

Past Yellow!

Impending lessons. I'll leave this for another page - another day - another life experience. ...well, it's here: at last Systems & Integration

Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions

There are interesting relationships that seem to fit the PCVJ also. I'm going out on a limb here - a bit of gut feeling [based on background knowledge though - some research needed]

Power Distance: high with Blue; Orange expect a difference; less so with Green; not much with Yellow [tho' can seem like it at times]

Individualism: this is like either side of the dependence-independence line, so less apparent in the interdependence area

Masculinity: I see this particularly as Purple/Blue [& a bit Green] as feminine vs Red/Orange as masculine. Yellow is potentially nonsexist though sometimes seeming quite a bit feminine to earlier paradigms [it's the relationship-building thing]

Uncertainty Avoidance: Blue the classic avoiders [as far as not even questioning what is being avoided!] vs Orange the risk-takers [questioning/looking for the risk/future]; Yellow the supreme navigators of ambiguity and chaos [uncertaintity]

Long-Term Orientation: the main opposites are Purple/Red/Blue [short-term - with Blues mainly to 12 months; maxing out at about 3-4 years - a voting term?] and Yellow [far-sighted pragmatists], with Orange/Green in between [hmmm, expecting mainly max 5-10 years - in strategic thinking areas/people, like executives]. some world cultures are good at this - Chinese!

remember: this is my puzzling over it... no evidence to reference yet

A thought on extreme independence:

If one focuses on attaining or keeping independence for too long or too rigidly, an negative aspect emerges (as with any paradigm). The journey to individuation (Purple to Red and, later, Blue to Orange) requires a complementary connectedness to other humans to maintain our wholeness. We may try for this superficially with family, friends, associates, though sometimes in an obscure attempt to keep that individuality, we may attach to things or animals as substitute people. These things or animals then are treated and felt about as we should really be feeling about another person. You see the person walking and talking to their companion dog as if IT were human. The guy and his CAR which is more precious than his girlfriend and gets the loving attention. In these circumstances, something is missing. We need to move and grow to find the missing relationship with humanity again. A friend, a partner, someone to help, whatever but we need to reconnect. Ah! Life's lessons. Later, as we find that we do NOT live with infinite resources, we then need to feel that connectedness with our provider, Planet Earth, and set new boundaries to our existence. Boundaries of physical growth, simultaneously unbinding our personal growth patterns - we become limitless - we dream far beyond our perceived reality.

Fragmentation is a major risk for the independent paradigm (Red and Orange) - a breakdown in the apparent success of the Orange appears when they start questioning, asking "What does having all this 'stuff/success' mean!" With Reds, the desire to upshift (to Blue) may be instigated by being usurped by another Red, an Orange, or by being incarcerated or threatened with it (sad, but true). There's a loss of status in one's 'community' (actually a poor substitute for real community but not recognized by the Red/Orange yet).

Blues sense or expectation of 'group', loyalty, belongingness, conformity, hierarchy has its own dysfunction in extremes [and it's not hard to see extremes here] - loss of individual self-direction/motivation [until you find out that you are 'just a number].

Each paradigm, if lived in extreme, has its corresponding dysfunctional traits. I will be introducing the Happiness Hill to this site soon [2015] as a means to address extremes in terms of Virtues and Vices.

Also consider that we are in 'The Age of Disconnection' where despite mobile phone, twitter, internet, Free/PayTV, games, etc, we are disconnected [dysfunctionally individualized] from sufficient actual face-to-face deep relationships, ESPECIALLY with nature [where does your water, chicken, blah blah come from and what does it REALLY cost, in nature's terms?]. Also consider, please the Gen Y phenomenon of 'I am special' [dysfunctional individuation] and fame/success/wealth is deserved of me and it will come without the work that others had to do just because I'm special'. I wonder, does it come. NOT!

Even more meaning in each Value Station:

Charles Handy, Management guru:

Charles Handy, in his book 'Gods of Management', 30 years ago saw that organizations needed at least four organizational styles or cultures to do their best work – different styles for different functions. However, now he says organizations still typically find it easier to work with one or two styles, usually the autocratic Zeus and bureaucratic Apollonian which work well in a stable world. When change and creativity is needed the team-based Athenian culture or the individualistic Dionysian style are needed.

These relate approximately to the PCVJ as: RED [or RED/BLUE]- Autocratic Zeus; BLUE - Bureaucratic Apollo; ORANGE - Individualistic Dionysis or Team-based Athenian (if transactional in nature). The Athenian style can reach to YELLOW with transformational leadership.

With the dynamic (currently unstable) global economies and markets, it seems that Handy would support the need for the business world to make the shift to a more Orange-Yellow paradigm.

For real enlightenment in the business world, read his 1995 book: Beyond Certainty. Even gurus had lessons to learn.

Broader/deeper perspectives & issues in short (mainly the negative aspects as they move towards dysfunctionality by each VS being overdone or not in balance with the broader paradigms):

Purple:

Emerging in the west a new displaced peoples - the aged - are becoming the 'unseen' and powerless - The Question remains of how to afford the expected health care, pensions, & accommodation of the retiring baby boomers

Red:

I'm expecting a regression in society from a range of frustrations of its peoples - from dealing with 'hard' [increasingly impersonal] & inefficient governments (Blues) & their endless 'requirement' for money for its bulging infrastructure & very efficient business (Oranges) as they 'extract' as much as they can from 'target markets'.

The regression may be an increase of so-called illegal activities - blackmarket, tax avoidance, violence, theft, etc... generally a loss of respect shown for others including the .gov

Blue:

If you study bureaucracies (also perhaps in political studies), you'll find some tendencies of the bureaucratic (Blue) style that make inevitable rigidities & dysfunction:

Blues tend towards...

- inflexibility & depersonalization [just a number]
- increasing institutionalism caused by increasing complexity in the world - ONLY simplification reverses this
- groupthink - recall you MUST virtually believe to belong to the group so similar thinking patterns emerge
- creeping control, leading to...
- increased secrecy - another result of the silo effect! (functional secrecy is a form of .gov regulation - including the now dysfunctional misuse/interpretation of Privacy Laws, FOI, etc - again to keep control/manage). Censorship is, by its nature, an act of secrecy though sold to the public as good intention. This is essentially mistrust of its constituents & NOT democratic & open as .gov claims it is! Conversely, the total opposite of censorship, anarchy[?], can be used by 'Red/Orange' groups as a tool to extract $$ be any means - pornography, drug sales, & other illicit product/services - hmmm, who determines these days what illicit is? It's a legal term - who makes the laws? Blue... As power moves from individual freedoms, one looses the choice of what YOUR [local] society/community is/can do. [& we wonder why the Julian Assange type activists of the world do what they do?]
- Blue: The slippery slope/road to homogeniety & violent defense of safety [war]

and

- large size almost requires institutionalization
- ditto organization - while seeking efficiencies; the organizing factors tends to inflexibility
- specialization (e.g. of departments) restricts one's 'responsibility' such that the 'rule-is-all' mentality emerges as the original intent/policy is NO LONGER considered in decision-making (i.e. NOT outcome-focussed), thus...
- the Blue organization becomes 'bound by its own rules; in gov, it's its laws/regulations/rigid process - incessantly reinforcing the fortress mentality

the specialization appears as increasing the hierarchical nature with its stratification of decision-making levels and insular approach (groupthink, is one consequence). The lefthand not talking to the right then promotes a slow, unclear, or unresponsive department or whole portfolio/gov.
- it gets worse as each 'department' defends its patch - its budget, its payroll, its 'rules', its staff and becomes more 'formal' even with its counterparts in .gov [& the long-term vision/policy goes out the door]

....tbc...

Orange:

As this paradigm gets more experienced at producing the 'effectiveness & efficiency' business strives for, we get...

- efficient extraction of money & time from the citizens through control of essential services [esp via monolopies/oligopolies] & well researched marketing
- creeping charges (compound effect) to insidiously increase control
- the moving of staples to a higher-priced food category (the old value-adding process!)
- & of course, increased competition - at all levels - enough is NOT enough leading to dysfunctional selfishness & greed - money & growth at any cost (or don't look at the true/total cost of ownership/production), etc
- especially insidious is the selling of entertainment & 'toys/gadgets' (& drugs by some) to entertain the populace to make $$ & increase control of the worker's purse

Orange: the slippery road to 'greed is good' or extreme competition [war]

ed note: ref to Nietzsche esp Will to Power & anti-christianity [anti-Blue] remembering that up to & including this mindset, paradigms usually reject their previous [lower] paradigms

So, Blues control/manage the population & its environment to make it 'safe'; Oranges seek to take from & control the purse strings of its target markets - the buyers, as well as USE the .gov as a source of revenue & benefits! This can be useful to a point, then ultimately descends into chaotic free-for-all as beneficial social values are eroded - towards the end of that particular 'civilization'.

Unless...

Green:

The realm of the holistic ideal & consensus-seeking. IF truly consensus seeking, then we have TRUE democracy, not the pseudo-democracry of the west - it's an oligopoly with the illusion of democracy [illusionary for the populace - the parties & power brokers know what is going on].

But, this is where we start. Start to look again at the big picture, the interconnectedness, if mainly in a humanistic perspective.

....tbc...

Yellow:

The pragmatist emerges... the social magi/maven... 'The Leader' [as different to 'The Manager']...

....tbc...

PCVJ & Politics

I have casually puzzled over how the current political world fitted in the PCVJ context for years. Here are some recent thoughts...

The political world (I'm only considering the West really - I believe the other 3 current civilizations are lagging and trying to do the same [catch up to] as the West) is a dynamic of 2 major paradigms - the Oranges & Blues together forming 70+% of social power - each seeking to establish their powerbase. Review Congruency & Culture Paradigms if you need.

Oranges

How is business politic? First, the GFC (2008-9) hurt many Oranges (especially banking & property corporates) and caused some regression to Red/Blue behaviours as they fight to stay afloat or, in some situations, actually garner extraordinary profits. Those profits would be from opportunities of others' failure (buying reduced/firesale/cheap assets and taking up the slack in markets where failed businesses exit).

Other opportunities can be found from .gov infrastructure spending to avert collapse - major projects like hospitals, roads, school buildings, solar projects, etc. Corporates win here the most (partly by the reduction of small business numbers & by their capacity to take on large .gov projects where small business becomes 'controlled' as a minor contractor)

A recent [2013] financial analysis of 5 [USA] bands of people, from the poor to the extremely rich, showed the massive 'hit' taken by the top tier rich. It last only a few years as finances were redirected. The overall theme then was interesting [& scary, but predictable]. In comparison, ALL other bands were getting poorer wrt 2008 - even the relatively wealthy & middle classes, but the super rich top 20% were back on track as if the GFC did not happen. Knowledge & experience helps make money - are they fulfilling their social contract?

Blues

Since our world is primarily an economics-driven system, a business approach of economic growth is inbuilt in the general psyche/mindset. On the other side of the power-balance, the .gov side's approach is essentially to manage growth within 'safe' limits (no recessions/depressions) limited by its budget (tax income, whatever its name). The power grab/growth in their context is not 'profit' but control (via law/rules) and its capacity to 'allow/permit' authorized business & other activities. In the .gov [mostly Blue] eyes, the bad greedy businesses must be held to account & controlled. Remember that Blues often see Oranges just as smart Reds. The shift in power comes from making more rules (laws) to control the apparent [& real] excesses of business [and to control those naughty slaves, oops, wrong word - the individuals, the tax-payers!].

Balance

In the writings on balance elsewhere, the distribution of a 'healthy' system emerges late in growth. There is NOT one pure 'type' a.k.a Value Station. Each paradigm is essentially MOSTLY [c.55%] that VS, with a distribution of past & 'future' paradigms to be functional (according to that paradigm). When we consider a particular 'nation', we have to look at the balance of Value Stations that exist to have a relatively stable and functional society. Stable DOES mean having 'social' growth [but not always defined as 'economic' growth] - stable as in somewhat predictable vs unstable/chaotic/etc.

IF we go too Blue (.gov has an overabundance of control), we can get several types of political entity - an authoritarian entity: say a dictatorship, an empire, kingdom - somewhat regressive in my mind. Or perhaps, as Shils offers, in a slightly more positive light, a totalitarian oligarchy. In this case, the multiple (oligarcic) Blue powerbases would be the Law makers (pollies), the law deciders (judicial system), & the law enforcers (military/policing) doing what they do (in their belief) FOR THE GOOD of the people [collectively, forget individuality]. Oranges will feel the brunt of 'over-control/regulation' because they have would have been 'naughty'.

IF we go too Orange (.business has overabundance of freedom to take profit - as we could interpret the USA to have done until the 'readjustment' of the GFC, Global Financial Crisis), we will still have a modernizing oligarchy since the Blue's structure & power doesn't disappear but the message will be that 'growth is good' for the economy therefore the society and so business will have more sanction & opportunity to extract profits in the name of 'good'. This is still an oligarchy - and the more 'democratic' of the states - where, using Almond & Powell, "the desire of the people to produce inputs is fully accepted and channelled, even when it is a question of demands rather than supports" is used by marketing to extract still higher profits. People's desire is fed by sales.

I wonder what happened to the 'social contract' to operate businesses.

Neither of these outcomes really seeks to consider the person at the bottom - the worker, the taxpayer, Jo Bloggs & family with respect or value other than ability to obey or pay. They are fodder to the machine - neither actually saying that! The Blues will BELIEVE they are the rightful controllers/managers [& have the means to enforce it] and want support of the individuals that make up society without regard of their individual demands. In the other extreme, the .gov will restrain themselves [NOT use enforcement] to support the economic growth concept so the business paradigm achieves its goal - profit taking. The Oranges will 'paint' their goal for individuals as 'money/growth is good' and 'market' effectively to hide the actual profitability. The pricing by 'value' has increased profits amazingly and removed basic, cheap staples of life [including medical] for the population from our shelves. 2013: Five years into the GFC & the distribution of wealth has stabilized into an new pattern. Now, the wealthy [top 20%] are back on track to get rich AS THEY WERE BEFORE THE GFC. However, the middle classes are now losing net wealth instead of growing [as before the GFC], while the bottom 20% are at least as bad off as they were - poor. ONLY the rich survived the [mini]crash. Worse is yet to come since we [people of the Earth] haven't fixed the core problem.

There will always be the ebb & flow of power in a dynamic. So what is a healthy political balance? Is it possible or does balance just mean being aware of the current environment? It depends on where our civilization is in its growth and where the observer is in theirs.

Usually we need to be aware of signals of imbalance to decide if we are close to being in balance or not. In good times, it seems no-one bothers to look out for serious imbalance. Again, seeing it requires a far-sighted vision (forwards & backwards) and again that requires a leadership discussion. Where are the statesmen of old?

Chaos:

I will get to discuss these soon wrt the PCVJ [June 2013]

Scaling,

self-similarity

turbulence/perturbence

attractors

renormalization

just getting started on politics... more coming

Need the origins of the PCVJ facts?

Click for the academic references page.